Yes, it could have been different in the past if Earth was much different in the past than it is now.
Yes, and if the earth was made out of cheese it wouldn’t work either.
2 Likes
Nonsense. He is giving you a perfectly rational description of this new thread.
3 Likes
Quite so! And it was the same quote every time, dude! Please try harder to pay attention. Thanking you in advance.
A post was merged into an existing topic: GOP insanity containment thread 3: Seriously, these people are nuts.
This is just standard GOP insanity, not local religious nut insanity- put it in the other thread.
ETA. Nvm
So if I got this right, you will shun scientific consensus if it conflicts with the bible. But you’re willing to conform your interpretation of the bible if it doesn’t jive with scientific consensus? That doesn’t quite make sense to me. Can you give an example of where you’ve done this?
Except, you know, we can see into the distant past by way of viewing into the distant universe, and there is no evidence of substantially different physical laws back then.
But somehow, you’ve decided that a bunch of guys who didn’t know what bacteria or viruses are, what nuclear fission or fusion are, what the speed of light is or even that light has a speed, what oxygen is, what penguins are, what Neptune is, what the number 0 is, what the light from the moon is, or even that the Earth is a sphere hurdling through a vacuous space rather than a landmass floating atop a large sea knew with absolute certainty the fundamental nature of reality 6000 years ago better then thousands of years of scientific study across all civilizations has done rather than entertain the notion that these guys were speaking in metaphors in their at-times self-contradictory writings.
Just to clarify, when the bible was written nobody thought the world was 6,000 years old. That idea dates to the 17th century. Ussher chronology - Wikipedia
I’m aware.
Never mind.
Your worldview is based on a book and you refuse to accept anything that doesn’t confirm that narrative, or you’re trolling.
Either way, engaging with you is fruitless and boring.
1 Like
I think you have it right.
My view is that science and Scripture can have apparent contradictions, but no actual contradictions. In other words, the facts we discover in Creation can never actually contradict Scripture. That being my presupposition, any apparent contradiction is because of one of two possibilities:
-
Scientific Consensus is wrong.
-
My interpretation of Scripture is wrong.
Since Evolutionism isn’t really even science at all (nor is Creationism), then it won’t come up in this context.
Real science is based on observation, testability and repeatabilty. Neither evolution nor special creation were observed, neither evolution nor creation can be tested in a lab experiment, and neither evolution nor creation has been replicated.
LOL, why bother arguing with you when you change the rules to suit you? Hopefully, this is enough for everyone to give your thoughts and opinions on real world topics the appropriate weight…
The bolded is correct.
So is this part:
What “rule(s)” did I change? I think I’ve been consistent.
When you get subscribed to the spinoff thread:
7 Likes
6 Likes
Kewl meme, dude!
Having said that, I don’t understand why you posted that kewl meme, since I don’t recall anybody proposing an argument of why someone should believe that the Bible is the Word of God.
Thanks for stopping by!